9.  On 9 November 1994 the applicant sued the co-operative Úsvit before the Bratislava II District Court (Obvodný súd). She claimed the payment of a sum of money to which she was entitled after she had ceased to be a member of the co-operative in 1993.
10.  On 18 January 1995 the Bratislava II District Court adjourned the case as the defendant's representative did not appear.
11.  On 20 February 1995 the District Court again adjourned the hearing because of the applicant's failure to appear.
12.  A hearing scheduled for 22 March 1995 had to be adjourned due to the absence of both parties.
13.  On 24 April 1995 the District Court adjourned the case on the ground that the defendant had not been duly served with a copy of the action.
14.  On 29 May 1995 the District Court adjourned the case until 26 June 1995 as the applicant did not appear.
15.  On 26 June 1995 the District Court established that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Bratislava City Court (Mestský súd).
16.  On 13 October 1995 the Bratislava City Court invited the applicant to pay the court fees.
17.  On 7 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court was notified that the applicant had paid the fees.
18.  On 29 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court resolved that the applicant had to pay an additional amount in court fees.
19.  On 12 April 1996 the applicant requested the Bratislava City Court to proceed with the case.
20.  On 12 September 1996 the applicant complained about delays in the proceedings to the president of the City Court.
21.  On 24 September 1996 the latter informed the applicant that the proceedings had been stayed on 18 September 1996 and that the relevant decision would be served later.
22.  In its decision of 18 September 1996 the Bratislava City Court noted that the decision on the applicant's action depended on the assessment of the property of the co-operative concerned and that this preliminary issue was the subject matter of a different set of proceedings which were brought in 1992 and were still pending before it. The City Court therefore stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant's claim pending the outcome of the other set of proceedings.
23.  The applicant appealed on 25 September 1996. She maintained, with reference to the relevant provision of the Commercial Code as well as to the memorandum and articles of the co-operative, that the amount due to her was to be calculated on the basis of the co-operative's net business assets set out in its financial statement for the year when her membership in the co‑operative had been terminated. The applicant argued that this information was available and that the outcome of the other set of the proceedings had no bearing on the determination of her claim.
24.  On 12 December 1996 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice that her case was not being proceeded with.
25.  On 27 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice admitted that the applicant's complaint about delays in the proceedings was justified. The letter stated that the case had been transferred to the Bratislava City Court on 29 September 1995 and that the latter, apart from requesting the applicant to pay the court fees, had not proceeded with the case effectively until 18 September 1996.
26.  On 29 January 1997 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the City Court's decision of 18 September 1996.
27.  On 24 March 1999 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about delays in the proceedings. The complaint was forwarded to the president of the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd - the former Bratislava City Court). On 22 June 1999 the president of the Regional Court informed the applicant that the case could only be proceeded with after the preliminary issue had been determined by a final decision.
28.  In 1991 a production unit of the co-operative Úsvit became an independent legal person registered as Plastobal, VDI. On 14 March 1992 the latter claimed that a part of the property of the co-operative Úsvit should be assigned to it.
29.  On 28 July 1992 the Bratislava City Court dismissed the plaintiff's request for waiver of the court fees. A hearing was held on 11 September 1992.
30.  On 21 September 1992 the Bratislava City Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the plaintiff had not paid the fees. The plaintiff appealed and claimed that the fees had been paid in the meantime.
31.  On 8 October 1992 the co-operative Úsvit filed an action with the Bratislava City Court claiming that Plastobal, VDI be liquidated.
32.   On 3 November 1992 the City Court quashed its decision of 21 September 1992. A hearing was held on 18 December 1992. The defendant requested that the proceedings be stayed pending a decision on its action of 8 October 1992. Another hearing was held on 27 January 1993. On 10 February 1993 the court appointed an expert and requested him to determine, within thirty days, the share of property of the co-operative Úsvit to which the plaintiff was entitled.
33.  On 25 February 1992 the defendant claimed that the proceedings be stayed. The City Court dismissed the request on 26 June 1993. On 28 July 1993 the defendant appealed. On the same day the plaintiff requested that the court issue an interim measure.
34.  In the meantime, on 17 July 1993 the Bratislava City Court appointed another expert who was to determine, within thirty days, the property share which was due to the plaintiff. On 29 September 1993 the defendant challenged the expert.
35.  On 3 November 1993 the expert submitted comments on the defendant's request for her exclusion.
36.  On 6 December 1993 the case file was submitted to the Supreme Court for a decision on the defendant's appeal against the City Court's decision of 26 June 1993. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as being inadmissible on 10 March 1994. The decision was transmitted to the City Court on 28 March 1994.
37.  On 8 February 1994 the expert informed the City Court that representatives of the defendant company had not allowed her to consult the relevant documents on 21 September 1993.
38.  On 28 June 1994 the defendant again challenged the expert. The judge heard the expert and informed the defendant, on 19 July 1994, that she had found no reason for excluding the expert. The defendant company was further informed that it could be fined under Article 53 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure should its representatives prevent the expert from carrying out her duty.
39.  On 10 August 1994 the defendant company again requested that the proceedings be stayed. On 29 September 1994 it challenged the judge dealing with the case.
40.  On 7 October 1994 the expert informed the City Court that the defendant company had not allowed her to consult the relevant documents.
41.  The case file was submitted to the Supreme Court on 11 October 1994. By a decision of 25 January 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's request for exclusion of the City Court judge.
42.  A hearing before the City Court was held on 10 April 1995.
43.  On 19 April 1995 the judge urged the expert to submit the opinion. On 28 April 1995 the expert informed the court that she had a heavy workload. The City Court appointed a different expert on 22 May 1995 and asked him to submit his opinion within thirty days.
44.  On 4 July 1995 the defendant company requested that the proceedings be stayed.
45.  On 2 October 1995 the expert requested the City Court to order the parties to put the relevant documents at his disposal. He also requested an advance on his costs and an extension of the time-limit for submission of his opinion.
46.  On 13 October 1995 the defendant company informed the City Court that the proceedings should be stayed and that, for that reason, it was irrelevant to take any further evidence in the case.
47.  On 9 November 1995 the expert informed the Court that the representatives of the defendant company had refused him access to the relevant documents. On 16 November 1995 the City Court imposed a fine of 5,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) on the defendant company, pursuant to Article 53 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that it had refused to co-operate with the expert. The defendant company appealed on 28 November 1995.
48.  The representatives of the defendant company failed to appear at a meeting with the expert and the plaintiff convoked by the City Court for 7 December 1995. As a result the expert could not obtain the relevant documents.
49.  On 23 January 1996 the case file was submitted to the Supreme Court for a decision on the defendant's appeal against the procedural fine which had been imposed on it on 16 November 1995. The Supreme Court upheld the decision on the procedural fine on 28 March 1996. The case file was returned to the City Court on 7 May 1996.
50.  On 19 September 1996 and on 16 December 1996 the judge asked the expert to inform her when the opinion would be submitted. On 7 February 1997 the judge invited the expert to specify which documents were necessary for drafting the opinion. On 26 February 1997 the expert informed the Bratislava Regional Court (which took over the agenda of the former Bratislava City Court) that the defendant had repeatedly refused to submit the relevant documents.
51.  On 7 March 1997 the Regional Court requested the defendant company to submit the relevant documents. On 27 March 1997 the representative of the defendant company asked the court for further specification of the documents to be submitted. In the meantime, on 25 March 1997, the plaintiff submitted further evidence to the Regional Court.  On 14 May 1997 the Regional Court received a proposal on delimitation of the property in question.
52.  A hearing before the Regional Court was held on 11 June 1997.  The Regional Court dismissed the defendant company's request that the proceedings be stayed. The defendant appealed on 19 June 1997. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on 24 November 1997. The Supreme Court's decision was transmitted to the Regional Court on 5 February 1998.
53.  On 22 December 1997 the defendant company requested the court to proceed with the case and explained that the dispute affected its business activities.
54.  On 16 March 1998 the Regional Court issued an interim measure, upon the request of the plaintiff of 28 January 1998, by which it prohibited the defendant company from alienating a part of its property.
55.  A hearing before the Bratislava Regional Court was held on 25 March 1998.
56.  On 2 April 1998 the defendant company appealed against the decision on the interim measure of 16 March 1998. The case file was transmitted to the Supreme Court which quashed the decision in question on 30 July 1998. The Supreme Court's decision was transmitted to the Regional Court on 26 August 1998. In the meantime, on 16 April 1998, the plaintiff submitted further evidence to the Regional Court.
57.  On 17 September 1998 the Regional Court invited the defendant company to submit documents so that the value of the property could be determined. The defendant replied on 28 October 1998.
58.  A hearing was held on 16 November 1998. An attempt to settle the case failed. The plaintiff amended its claim and the case was adjourned with a view to obtaining an expert opinion.
59.  On 11, 15 and 26 January 1999 the defendant company submitted further evidence to the Regional Court.
60.  On 24 May 1999 the Regional Court quashed its above decisions on the appointment of experts. It held, with reference to the correspondence included in the file, that it had been impossible to obtain an expert opinion. On the same day the Regional Court further delivered a judgment in which it granted the major part of the plaintiff's claims.
61.  On 2 July 1999 the defendant appealed against the judgment. The case file was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 5 August 1999. The plaintiff submitted comments on the case on 2 September 1999. They were transmitted to the Supreme Court on 9 September 1999.
62.  A hearing before the Supreme Court was held on 18 January 2000. The appellate court dismissed the defendant's request that the proceedings be stayed.
63.  On 31 March 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court's judgment of 24 May 1999. It noted that the assessment of the property in question on the basis of an auditor's report submitted by the defendant company was not sufficient, and instructed the first instance court to take further evidence and to appoint an expert to that effect. The decision was transmitted to the Regional Court on 23 May 2000.
64.  On 12 September 2000 the representatives of the defendant company submitted further information to the Regional Court. A hearing was held on 28 September 2000 and the case was adjourned. On 13 October 2000 the defendant company submitted its comments on the evidence before the court.
65.  On 13 June 2001 the Regional Court ordered an expert opinion on the value of the property in question to be submitted before 30 September 2001. On 25 September 2001 the expert asked for an extension of the time-limit until 30 November 2001 on the ground that the relevant documents no longer existed.
66.  On 28 September 2001 the Regional Court instructed the expert to suspend the elaboration of the opinion pending an informative hearing of the parties which was scheduled for 11 October 2001. On 15 October 2001 the Regional Court decided that the parties were to pay an advance on the expert's fees and costs. It further instructed the expert to proceed with the opinion. On 25 October 2001 the defendant company challenged both the expert and the above decision on the expert's fees an costs.
67.  On 10 January 2002 the expert informed the Regional Court that the elaboration of the opinion had been impaired by the defendant's conduct. On 16 January 2002 the Regional Court urged the expert to submit the opinion. It was submitted on 31 January 2002. On 5 and 6 February 2002 respectively the parties were invited to submit their comments on it within ten days.
68.  On 4 February 2002 the Regional Court asked the Regional archive in Bratislava for information about archiving of documents. The latter replied on 4 March 2002. In the meantime, on 21 February 2002, the defendant submitted comments on the expert opinion.
69.  On 15 April 2002 the Regional Court heard the parties. The case was adjourned until 27 May 2002 as it was necessary to obtain further evidence. In this context, thirty-one witnesses were summoned.
70.  On 19 April 2002 the Regional Court decided on the expert's fees.
The proceedings are pending.